On Illinois Republican candidate Jeanne Ives' bizarre social issues ad
In October 28, 2017, Illinois State Representative Jeanne Ives decided to challenge incumbent Republican governor Bruce Rauner in the March 20, 2018 Republican primary. Her issue wasn’t Rauner’s position on economic and labor issues - it was the fact that he signed House Bill 40, which undid the Illinois law that would make abortion illegal in Illinois if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned and allowed Medicaid funds to be used for abortion services.
As her Wikipedia page lays out in detail, Ives is pretty conservative on social issues. And she wasn't the only pro-life Republican who was upset with Rauner, because he promised he would veto HB40 but didn't. Still, her campaign was seen as a bit of long shot because Rauner is a millionaire and Ives...isn't (that and because she doesn't have nearly as much of a fundraising apparatus behind her and she isn't well-known outside western suburbs). But the last few weeks have been good to her. She got endorsements from Chicago Republican Party and a few suburban and Republican organizations. She did well in the Jan. 29 Chicago Tribune Editorial Board debate against Rauner. Sure, on February 1, there was a flap over a conservative talk show host with a history of what would be politely described as “racially charged remarks” being scheduled to speak at a rally organized by her supporters, but Ives disinvited him pretty quickly.
But then, only a day later, the news broke that she was releasing this ad:
Click to viewFirst of all, a few facts. House Bill 1785 simply makes it easier for transgender individuals to change their birth certificates to reflect whatever gender they transitioned to. We already touched on HB40, but it’s worth pointing out that Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services said that the bill was revenue-neutral (based on the fact they would be saving on birth/childcare costs that would be Medicaid-eligible - a logic that may, admittedly, raise a few eyebrows, but they’re not wrong.)
Senate Bill 31 merely says that law enforcement officers can’t detain a person simply because they are in United States illegally. They can still be detained if they allegedly committed some other crime. (Now, there are people out there who say that the ad meant that all illegal immigrants are, by definition, criminals, but then, it would have just said “illegal aliens” - the criminals part was clearly meant to imply the kind of crime that goes on the police blotter).
Senate Bill 1947 is a pretty complex and complicated piece of legislation, but to describe it simply as a "bailout" for Chicago Public Schools district ignores the fact that it's the only district in the entire State of Illinois where the state doesn't cover the school districts' portions of pension contributions. And, perhaps more pertinently, while the new school funding formula does hurt many school districts in western suburbs, like the ones Ives represents, it helps schools in some of the less well-off southern suburbs, smaller cities like Aurora, North Chicago and Rockford, and a pretty good chunk of the rural districts in downstate Illinois. So to imply that the bill only helped Chicago is just plain incorrect.
Ives is a legislator, so she can't claim ignorance over what the pieces of legislations she voted on actually said. And, since the add was helpful enough to include bill numbers, this is pretty easy to look up.
But, of course, the reason why this ad got plenty of people on both sides of the aisle upset wasn't the inaccuracies - it was the scaremongering. The talk about men invading kids' bathrooms, the "criminal" illegal aliens thing, the fact that the girl in the pussy hat talked about getting abortions, the scary protestor in a scary Occupy-style bandana... You can even make an argument that the fact that Chicago Teachers Union was represented by a black woman was designed to play on the whole "Chicago schools are scary because brown people." (I'm less convinced of that one, but one can make that argument. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone had to have made it online already)
It didn’t help that Ives’ response to ensuring controversy was basically "well, I'm not wrong
The ad represents Governor Rauner’s chosen constituents based on the policy choices he made, as well as a fair and accurate representation of the implications of those policy choices. Governor Rauner’s record was similarly covered by both National Review and Fox News, as highlighted in the ad.
Those Republican primary voters who don’t know of Rauner’s betrayals of conservatives need to know. Now they will
Honestly, my reaction to the ad is, more then anything, puzzlement. It isn't that issues like abortion or lGBT rights don't matter - they do in some parts of Illinois, and yes, that includes parts of Chicago itself and the suburban Chicagoland. But is economics, not social issues, that tend to be the driving force in our state elections. And while there are plenty of stereotypical Evangelical values conservatives, there are also people who lean conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues. There are people who oppose abortions but who vote for Democrats because unions. There are Catholics who oppose abortion but want to help illegal immigrants for the same reason as they oppose abortion - their faith. And there are plenty of African-Americans who are pro-life and who aren't terribly keen on LGBT rights, but who would never vote Republican because they don't believe Republicans would ever care about them (and, in my personal opinion, because their local Democrat elected officials are involved in the community and they like them.
There is a reason why, when Rauner ran for governor in 2014, he focused on the economy and tried to side-step social issues as much as possible. Even if Ives wins the primary (and I'm not convinced they will, but between the fact that primaries tend to attract diehards and turnout is much lower than general election turnout, it isn't impossible), I just don't see how she can possibly do well in general election. You can't win a gubernatorial election without winning a significant chunk of Chicagoland, and I just don't see her pulling it off.
If Ives was smarter, she would have focused on economic issues. She'd do what worked in the Tribune debate - portray Rauner as a guy who can't keep his promise to shake up Springfield. Ives' views are a matter of public record, and it's not like she was ever shy about sharing them, but putting them front and center in her very first campaign ad.
It says quite a bit about how much of a blunder this was that some of her supporters refused to believe the ad was real, while others believe that Ives is just trying to get media attention. Sure, some of her supporters took the ad exactly as it was meant to be taken - a quick search of Facebook and Twitter shows as much - but, like I said, that was hardly a universal reaction.
One of the great bipartisan sins of politics is to assume that the majority of electorate believes exactly what you do. Whether you’re coming from the right or the left, that is never correct. Still… we live in the age of Trump and the anti-Trump backlash.
Let’s see just how far this will get Ives.